Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Impeach George W. Bush -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: ManyMoose who wrote (5336)	8/1/2001 1:24:26 PM
From: jttmab	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 93284

That may be, but the right to keep and bear arms is a right, not a privilege. The constitution doesn't grant it, it protects it. Big difference. It may very well be a right or a privelege, depending on what kind of arm your talking about and whose right or privelege it is. I think most people believe that there isn't an individual right to own a tank or a fully equipped F-16. You may or may not have read my earlier post on US vs. Miller, so forgive me if I repeat. It appears that in US vs. Miller, the Court set that weapons that had a military value were covered by the second amendment. Hence, a sawed off shotgun, having no reasonable use as a military weapon was not protected by the second. Or in your terminology, owning a sawed off shotgun would be a privelege and not a right....which I believe was also acknowledged in US vs. Emerson. Regards, jttmab